| PeterB 2006-07-31, 4:29 pm |
|
0:-> wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> You insist YOUR argument is that the state has no right to force
> treatment on a patient that doesn't want it.
I was very clear in that. And it wasn't the question.
> Of course that's my premise. What else could be.
Just wanted you on record saying it's your belief that chemo should be
forced on a patient against his will. This is your chance to clarify
if you so choose.
> I also offered to discuss the legal aspect, noting that in fact the
> state DOES have that responsibility. If the boy was 12 would your
> argument seem rational to you?
So, you don't believe the parents have jurisdiction over a child, even
when prognosis using a given treatment is poor, or when such treatment
may be fatal?
> 8?
>
> 5?
>
> 5 months?
>
>
> I have and you have refused to read or admit to it.
I have seen what you believe passes for evidence: Observational
studies, anecdotal references, drugs compared to other drugs, a glaring
lack of randomized and controlled studies in cancer prognosis in both
treated and untreated patients. Is that what you mean?
>
> Then my argument that Hoxsey's is less "proven" than chemo is no longer
> the argument?
If it is, it can't rest on the lack of clinical data supporting Hoxey
alone. It should rest primarily on the proven value (and safety) of
chemotherapy. So far, you've provided links to marketing and
promotional material, but nothing more.
> What else could my premise be.
Your total premise, then, is your belief that chemo might cure this
boy. What if it kills him, instead? What will your apology to the
parents be worth then?
> You are obviously shifting into the common tactics of the Troll.
I'm obviously trying to figure out why you believe so much in chemo.
> Is is because you really have nothing to confound my argument?
Do you mean, your position?
> You argue form, rather than facts offered?
"Facts" are a matter of interpretation, sir. You haven't done better
than provide links to promotional material and invitations to
participate in clinical trials. Those are hardly facts.
>
> I have so posted. And I have not posted a thousand times. And I have
> said something.
So, you believe chemo is Abraham's best option, therefore the state
should usurp the parents' jurisdiction over their own child and force
medicate him. Just checking.
> Yes, you are behaving as a troll, lying flat out about what I have posted.
I have not lied, sir. I have merely asked you to be absolutely clear.
>
> So it's okay with you if the state decides to allow him NO medical
> treatment? That would follow logically.
The state has already indicated that, given Abraham's refusal to accept
chemo, he will not be force medicated, but rather be incarcerated like
a common criminal. If the US courts decline to force medicate, who am
I to advocate (as you have) something so obviously heinous? No, I
would not. Nor do I believe the state has the right to restrain
Abraham against his will, or to prevent his choice of treatment.
>
> You have done no such thing. You have worked to obscure the issue and
> demand I argue in one area only. When I offered to you quickly began
> arguing MY premise again.
I gave you a chance to flesh out your position, and your response was
to reiterate links to promotional material for chemotherapy. How
telling.
>
> You lying some more.
It was a question.
>
> Prove it, sir.
I hardly need to prove that state jurisdiction usurping parental
authority over children is injurious to individual rights. It
represents a clear breach of contract with the American people.
Polling efforts over the years have certainly confirmed this view, and
the Constitution must be, above all, a document representing the will
of the people. Remember the Schiavo case.
>
> Nope. I have been perfectly clear. I have stated that the state is
> responsible for it's citizens, and Abraham is one, when it's
> demonstrated that person is at risk because of their limitations.
Prove it.
> A child is at risk precisely because of his limitations and that IS why
> we have the designation in law of "Minor."
Prove it.
> The state is acting in his interests when the parents failed to.
But the state will not force chemo on Abraham. Therefore, what
Constitutional premise is served in putting him in restraints?
>
> What utter nonsense. You yourself labeled my "premise" earlier in your
> own post.
As I said, I wanted to give you a chance to flesh it out. You declined
to do so.
> Are you in care somewhere?
Are you?
> That is the most asinine lie sir; to pretend I have not made my premise
> clear.
I rest my case. Your premise is clear. Clearly dangerous.
> Debate by obfuscation and lying.
I haven't obfuscated, I've helped you clarify your own position.
>
> Total non sequitur. That is NOT the argument. I made NO such claim about
> your intent.
No, but I can make that very claim about your own comments. Are you in
favor of majority rule? Answer that.
>
> Yet you were able to identify it with no trouble. The failure of the
> parents to act in the boys behalf between two health treatment
> alternatives.
You haven't proven that with promotional links to chemo drugs.
>
> No, it's time saving and shows that I understand quite well that you
> about ducking and dodging.
So you say.
> Instead of giving YOUR premise and proofs, you simply lie and say I have
> not given mine.
I've been quite clear in stating my argument.
> Let me show you how you lie. Read on.
See my comments below your first 4 links. You call this evidence? I
call it quackery.
PeterB
>
> Yet there it is below. Citations to research and study reports.
>
> See how you lie.
>
>
>
> Note the dodge above?
>
>
>
>
>
> You decide that YOU shall set the criteria for argument. Yet you refuse
> to accept it when it's offered and claim it is just "belief" of the poster.
>
> What utter nonsense. It's the "belief" of medical researchers in oncology.
>
> You are simply a liar. For what agenda it's difficult to say, but it
> could be simply for the exercise of lying. I've met people such as you
> before.
>
> Kane
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|